Kerala High Court
N.Ramaswamy vs The Chairman, Governing Body on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:58113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRP(UTY) NO. 3 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2010 IN UNIVERSITY APPEAL
NO.6 OF 2009 OF UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-----
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
N.RAMASWAMY,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.NATESA IYER,
(REDUCED IN RANK FROM POST OF PROFESSOR), DEPARTMENT OF
ARCHITECTURE, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOOLLAM-5.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN MANNALI
SMT.SANTHI K.PAI
SMT.V.N.SHASHIKALA
SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY,
TKM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM, PIN-691 005.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE 'KERALA
UNIVERSITY', PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
3 THE 'KERALA UNVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL',
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 035.
2025:KER:58113
CRP(UTY) NO. 3 OF 2021 -2-
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
THIS CRP (UNIVERSITY ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58113
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P. (UTY) No.3 of 2021
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2025
O R D E R
Sathish Ninan, J.
Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
resulted in a finding of guilt and the imposition of
punishment of demotion from the post of Professor to
Assistant Professor. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached
this Court.
2. The petitioner was working as a Professor in the
Department of Architecture in the first respondent-College.
From 01.06.1999 onwards he was working in a leave vacancy
and was appointed on a permanent vacancy on 02.11.2005.
3. The petitioner was served with memo of charges dated
24.01.2006. He was also suspended pending enquiry as per
order dated 24.01.2006. In the enquiry the petitioner was
found guilty. As per order dated 05.03.2009 he was imposed
with a punishment of degradation of his post from that of
2025:KER:58113
the Professor to Assistant Professor. It was further ordered
that the period of suspension from 24.01.2006 to 29.03.2009
was ordered to be treated as leave.
4. Challenging the order the petitioner filed appeal
before the Tribunal. In the light of the judgment of the
Larger Bench of this Court in Manager, St Josephs Training College v.
University Appellate Tribunal (1980 KLT 67), the Tribunal rejected the
appeal holding it to be not maintainable. Challenging the
dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.15587/2011. As per judgment dated 24.02.2021, the writ
petition was dismissed relegating the petitioner to the
revisional remedy under Section 60(9) of the Kerala
University Act. Challenging the same the petitioner filed
W.A. 1197/2021. Pending the appeal this revision petition
was filed. The Division Bench having consideration of the
filing of the revision petition, permitted the petitioner to
withdraw the writ appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal was
dismissed as withdrawn.
5. We have heard Sri.Sajan Mannali, learned counsel on
behalf of the petitioner, Sri.George Poonthottam, learned
2025:KER:58113
Senior Counsel on behalf of the first respondent, and
Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the second
respondent.
6. The disciplinary proceedings and the punishment
imposed are challenged on the merits as well as on violation
of statutory prescriptions. Firstly we proceed to discuss on
the alleged statutory violations.
7. Section 60(3) of the Kerala University Act enables
suspension of a teacher but only for a period of 15 days. In
the case at hand the petitioner was suspended on 24.01.2006.
He continued under suspension till the imposition of
punishment. There is apparent violation of the provision.
8. Section 60(4) enables to seek for extension of time.
Further in terms of Section 60(4) the disciplinary
proceedings is to be completed within a period of three
months. The said provision was also apparently violated. It
is not in dispute that no extension of time was sought for.
9. Coming to the merits, essentially the complaint was
one of victimization of students. The crux of the charges
levelled is, violation of the University Regulations by not
2025:KER:58113
awarding, reckoning, tabulating, consolidating the component
vice split up of marks and that the split up of marks
submitted by teachers were manipulated and only lump sum
marks were awarded for the aggrieved students.
10. On the very same factual allegations and charges
levelled against the petitioner, there was a disciplinary
proceeding against yet another staff member who is a
colleague of the petitioner under the same department.
11. The enquiry proceedings had resulted in the finding
of guilt and imposition of punishment. Challenging the same,
the delinquent approached this court in W.P.(C)
No.35877/2005. This court after an exhaustive evaluation of
the statutory provisions and the factual allegations,
allowed the writ petition interfering with the enquiry
proceedings and the punishment. As in the present case,
therein also this Court had found violation of the mandates
under Section 60 of Chapter VIII of the Kerala University
Act. On the merits, this Court took note of the report on
the enquiry conducted into the allegations by the Principals
of two other Engineering Colleges. The enquiry was at the
2025:KER:58113
instance of the Directorate of Collegiate Education. In the
enquiry it was found that there was no material to
substantiate the allegations levelled. It was found that the
entire proceedings are liable to be interfered with. This
Court held that the petitioner therein was illegally kept
out of service by the order of suspension and that the
petitioner is entitled for the service benefits.
12. As was noticed supra, the petitioner herein is
identically placed. The enquiry at the instance of the
Directorate of Collegiate Education related to the
petitioner herein also along with the petitioner in W.P.(C)
35877/2005. There is no material to arrive at a different
conclusion in the present case. The learned counsel for the
respondents were unable to bring to the notice of this court
any material to hold otherwise. The findings in W.P.(C)
No.35877/2005 are to be followed in the present case also.
Thus, the disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment
imposed on the petitioner are liable to be set aside and we
do so.
2025:KER:58113
13. This Court in W.P.(C) No.35877/2005 had granted the
petitioner therein all the service benefits finding that the
petitioner therein was illegally kept out of service. This
Court ordered thus :-
"The petitioner is found to have been illegally kept out of service by the order
of suspension. The petitioner is entitled to the entire pay and allowances for the
period starting from three months after the date of his suspension till
superannuation. Any subsistence allowance paid would be deducted from such
computation of pay and allowances. The period of suspension shall be treated
as leave without allowances. The petitioner shall also be entitled to full pension
as determined by the appropriate authority. The arrears of pay and allowances
and pension shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
Whatever amounts disbursed to the petitioner, as per the interim orders of this
Court shall be deducted when computing the arrears to be paid."
The same directions shall stand incorporated in this
judgment. It is clarified that, even during the period of
enquiry, the petitioner is entitled to salary in the scale
of pay of Professor and not in the reduced rank. He shall
also be entitled to all service benefits including the pay
revision benefits and pensionary benefits.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a
contention that the petitioner was eligible for promotion
and that such benefit is also to be declared. With regard to
2025:KER:58113
the claim of promotion, rights of the petitioner to urge it
in appropriate proceedings is left open. No other
contentions are urged on either side.
The Revision Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
APPENDIX OF CRP(UTY) 3/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 21.01.2006.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SUSPENSION DATED
24.01.2006.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED
28.02.2006.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
10.02.2007.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.02.2008.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
08.04.2008.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
01.09.2008.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 03.11.2008.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2009.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.6/2009 DATED
15.04.2009 FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION DATED
10.07.2009.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2010.
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WP(C) NO.35877 OF 2005 DATED
18.02.2016.
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
26.02.2006.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15587 OF
2011 DATED 24.02.2021.
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.1198=7/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
25.10.2021.
-----
